skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Working as planned? I wouldn't know. I'm not talking about the pathology of the USA govt. What I'm trying to do is talk about systems more resistant to regulatory capture.

What marvels me is the three-way fight. It just seems much more self-balancing. And great things happen when people have to hash things out.

Back when I was a product manager, I structured the team to mimic the balance of powers. (That particular company was engineering dominated, which got fairly pathological.)

Marketing was in charge of price and scope.

Engineering was in charge of cost and schedule.

QA was in charge of testing and shipping.

Give and take. Creative tension.

The outcome was brilliant. After a storming period, the team settled into a tempo and always made our dates and sales numbers.

I don't know if setting up a three-way fight is a repeatable organizational structure. But it's the best idea I've come across to date. The only other idea I have is increased transparency.

(PS- All big decision were made democratically, with various kinds of voting systems. eg Go/NoGo was roman evaluation, triage was risk management style, etc.)
Beyond Javascript part 2: Dart and Typescript
It definitely led to less rewards for him, but increased rewards for society. I wouldn't expect any for-profit business to be more concerned about society, though, strange that it wasn't patented.
I'd like to see what became of the project and why it was apparently canceled.

I disagree however with the last statement of the article: "If flying saucers were somehow faster or more efficient or capable of lifting heavier loads, we would almost certainly see them in a commercial setting."

Just because flying saucers aren't used commercially doesn't necessarily imply that they are inefficient. It just means that the flying saucer technology we have at the moment is more inefficient than the fixed wing technology. Fixed wing technology could simply be ahead because it has seen a lot more iterative development.

Endeavors of this kind, that carry a huge upfront investment in the initial technology compared to what's on the market now, tend to be things where a free market really performs badly.
The first thing you usually do with the 555 is to blink a LED, that's the universal "hello world" of electronics. Then, you can connect a speaker and do funny noises. Can't compare it with a PIC or any uC, they are much more complex devices to operate. When you are 10 year old it blows your mind.
I'd like to place myself in this category, even though I'm only 34. My claim to being successful is that I make much more money than I can spend (though we're not talking millions here) doing things I enjoy doing. I largely agree with you, but have some comments:

1. I think my best quality is that I'm lazy. Extremely lazy. Yet still very productive. I achieve this by thinking more about problems before I do anything, which usually greatly reduces the amount of work I actually have to do, because I come up with a better way of doing it. I'm extremely serious here; on a normal working day I'll likely spend more than 50% slacking. My clients don't care, they get charged only for the effective hours. And I love it, because the effective hours become so much more productive that I can charge a lot for them.

4. This matters a lot, especially in communicating to other stakeholders. Nothing is more annoying than someone who promises to do something by date X, only to not hear anything by then.

6. Extremely true. I talk to a lot of people to find work, and generally have a ratio of 10:1 for possible opportunities to things that actually lead to real work. I don't think I can improve this ratio much, because really interesting work is not that readily available.

I'm also not very active in the blogosphere and social media, mostly because that's simply not where my work comes from. My work comes mostly from business people and they care much more about recommendations, being able to talk to them in language they understand, etc.
> Indeed, and the definition of science doesn't contain "must have a unifying theory" as a prerequisite.

On the contrary. Crafting and then testing theories is at the heart of how science is defined. A theory is an attempt at explanation, and all scientific theories can be falsified in principle.

No theory, no falsification -- but also, no science.

> Scientific theories may not become true, but science absolutely is a search for truth.

Science is not in any way a search for truth. Truth is not a goal in science, only theories that resist falsification. Any scientific theory is perpetually open to falsification -- that is not a property of truth. Truths aren't falsified later as new facts arrive -- that property is limited to theories.

> I also notice you haven't offered an alternative to my definition, you merely disagreed ("Science is not a search for truth")

No alternative is necessary --the claim is false, period. It's easy to explain why (theories must remain open to falsification by new evidence) but there is no reason to offer an alternative, a replacement.

> and argued against a straw man ("scientific theories never become true").

That wasn't a straw man -- it replies to your claim "Science is anything that searches for the truth in some matter." That is a word-for-word quotation. And it's false -- science's goal is limited to finding evidence to support a theory about reality, prevent it from being falsified.

> and then claimed that this makes mathematics the most pure science there is ...

I never said this, anywhere. Those are not my words.

> I described a way psychology could be scientific, i.e. by experiment.

The topic is not whether psychology cold be scientific, if for example ethical constraints were ignored. The topic is whether psychology is scientific.

> You misrepresent half of my claims and hand-wave the other half.

I misrepresented nothing, instead I quoted you word for word, just as I am doing now. You, by contrast, have invented positions for me, like "... and then claimed that this makes mathematics the most pure science there is ..." as though I had taken that position or used those words.
Actually a "2 + 3" captcha is much more effective than a typical one with an image. You'd be surprised.

When I ran a phpBB forum that spammers would join to get some of my PageRank 2 juice, putting up a special question on the registration form (by modifying the php code), was much more effective than phpBB3's captcha function with maximum difficulty applied.

Spamming software doesn't have support for capctha questions, only captcha images.
And any forward momentum captured this way is not absorbed by the brake pads, thus they last much longer.
Baseball as an excuse for programming
Starting early is only half the battle. The other half is the rate of return. If you start up a retirement account at age 17 with $2000 in it, but you just put it in a generic savings account, by age 37 you'll have . . . $2209.

People encouraging you to save often give unrealistically high rates of return. 12% is unrealistic for any investment vehicle I know of (though people sometimes say it for the stock market -- but they're crazy optimistic).

Here's a spreadsheet to show you the impact of both rate of return and time:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AqTfjQUnJdLkdFl...
I'm totally onboard with aligning incentives with desired (societal) outcomes.
> I'm sure there's something more authoritative:

> http://www.gottabemobile.com/2012/05/04/verizon-employees-pu...

That's not a question of trade dress. Verizon sales representatives are well within their rights legally to push Android over iOS (contractually, maybe not, but that's a separate issue). Saying "X is better than an iPhone" is entirely different from saying "X is an iPhone". And actually, neither case is relevant to trade dress, which is about customer confusion due to product appearance, not customer confusion due to salespeople.

> I would also like to remind everyone about the popular chinese tech blogger (self proclaimed) that thought a knockoff iPhone was the real thing.

You'll note that the knockoff was branded as an iPhone. No one disputes that counterfeit devices are designed to confuse. That's why they're call counterfeit devices and not competing devices.
On mobile sites, I'm glad for the Stop button. Once I can see what I want to see, if the page is still trying to load something I just hit stop and in many cases, the content displays just fine without their layover ads or extra JS bullcrap.
> That experiment was Vietnam. You need to read its main reference.

By your definition, Vietnam was a scientific experiment? This speaks volumes about how you picture science. The plural of anecdote is not evidence.
If I earned an income from building a product that people found useful then that's success to me.

Interesting revenue starts at $5k pcm pre-tax from my POV. I could work on it full time on a fraction of that. I wouldn't quit my job until those kind of numbers were coming in repeatedly for a good while.

Anything that generated in the region of $10k pcm would be enough to manage the project hands off & spend my time building everything else in my project file and more!

P.S It was front page for a little while! Now it's top of 'ask'. It has generated some great feedback so I'm really happy.
yep, after all those embarrassingly parallel things are parallelized, the serial stages choke performance. I had to crack that puzzle. As for %, off-hand I would say the majority of the time.
This is not apparent when you profile the traditional C-oriented libraries. It is when the colorspace/iDCT code is implemented in SIMD, the other stuff starts showing up as the primary bottleneck. Amdahl's Law is quite frustrating!
The following organizations, including Apple, are listed as stewards:

Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, HP, Microsoft, Mozilla, Nokia, Opera, W3C

See http://webplatform.org/stewards/
Sounds like he has never owned a luxury car and can't afford a Tesla... (neither can I) If you can can't afford the maintenance, you can't afford the purchase.

Did anyone else have a laugh at "the Volt is among the most complex cars on the road today--far more complicated than the Tesla"?!

Reminds me of my friend who saved up for many years and finally got that Porsche, only to discover that fixing a small dent in the bumper was $2k+. "I don't have that kind of money." Car-poor.

Several years later he bought a house, then got a leak in the basement and the water heater needed replacing... "I don't have that kind of money." House-poor.
I suspect it doesn't. The reason I don't think so is because programming languages aren't spoken; even when we learn a dead natlang, like Latin, we are taught how to speak it even if we're missing the social context.

But that's a guess on top of a guess, so grain of salt and all.
And of course, that doesn't account for the risk of the investment -- which, as a lot of people discovered in 2008, is a real, actual thing.
Just what I needed, a lexer that cares :)
I thought there were going to be some analysis of some documents, then it veered off into discussing how much the jury foreman made and how his wife didn't work and what he spent on what...
Using an arduino for a timer is a spectacular waste of resources and very bad engineering (unless you already need the arduino), you might as well use a Core i7 to blink a led. The pricing will be about the same, you pay for the plastic package and shipping. Silicon price is very low.
Isn't it illegal to void the warranty on a car for work done, just because the work is done at a third-party shop? I seem to recall this tactic being taken a while bag and it being struck down.
Then they went deep underground and met some greys who killed all but hilter and then he became their king. All the while using the technology of the acients that was trapped under the ice in the pole from the orignal Arc, which is the last bit of technology from the race of people that lived on earch before the big flood 5000 years ago, which started the mayan creation story AND gave birth to Noans arc story.
Groklaw brings up these points because they're relevant to the case, not to "drag him through the mud." The prosecution needs to convince the jury beyond a reasonable doubt, WITHOUT preconceived notions of any kind. This jury foreman had history with patents that he brought to the jury which influenced their decision. That, by definition, is not a fair trial.
Walmart, Amex Roll Out New Prepaid Card
Aloha Editor - a HTML5 WYSIWYG Editor
The engine exhaust is very highly directional, it doesn't just go everywhere. For example, the supporting structures around the engines are exposed to the same level of exhaust as a shut-down engine would be, and they are completely uncooled.
I agree. And getting a standing desk is a way to avoid sitting around.

There were some studies floating around a while ago, about how even if you control for amount of exercise people get, sitting around more still leads to worse health and higher death rates.
As you suggest, there are several schools of thought about how best to provide class-style programming. By using a closure instead of prototypes, you can have "true" private properties and functions. If you use prototype, you'll need to use a convention to mark something as private and hope the developers respect that (marking it with an underscore is common). In my experience, someone will ignore the convention and then something will break when you change or remove your "private" variable.
It's not possible. Claiming billion active users is already raising many doubts.
Huawei is owned in part by the Chinese government. Network virtualization (e.g. software defined networking) may decrease the risks posed by foreign manufactures since the software can be developed in the US, but still, a backdoor is possible. The backdoor itself could be at the compiler level, thus not detectable even with source code review (except of the compiler).
The list could go on ... if you are a mathematician. If you are a physicist (not working on string theory), you rarely use topological concepts - if at all. While working towards my Ph.D. on some topic in finite temperature effects in gauge theories, I did not know anything about fiber bundles and still know nothing about de Rham cohomology classes. My non-theorist physicists friends knew even less about those mathematical topics.
Interactive Map of Murders in Camden NJ
Knuth didn't develop LaTeX.
Why We Created the Validation Board
Android Dialog - Android Custom Dialog
The vast gulf between current technology and theoretical singularity
Just a guess, but it could be that Jobs didn't approve file uploads all this while, and now Cook and team didn't see why they shouldn't allow file uploads.
Creative pushed Steve Jobs to armor up for the smartphone patent war
F.lux changes the "color temperature" only, so I imagine there would be no perceptible difference when dealing in greyscale.
I'm not going to go anywhere near PayPal when I finally launch due to the risk of payment freezes etc.
So the advice is: Move!
Right, I took away only the level 1 categories as a list of things to ask candidates and get them started talking.
That jQuery code is so horrible. What about if CANVAS_WIDTH is from an insecure source? Maybe someone sets it to include some of its own <script> tags or other tomfoolery.

HTML shouldn't feature in javascript code IMHO.
Putting brakes on ride-sharing apps
Show HN: A place to buy and sell services directly from each other
Brake jobs far any expensive vehicle are just short of a scam in my opinion. Do your own brake job (takes about an hour for a complete novice) and save yourself the money.
What benefit does an LLC possess over a C corp? Bear in mind that a C Corp can also make an S Corp election.
I would like to see a section that includes things like identifying/clarifying customer requirements, finding business solutions, controlling scope, organizing a project around some methodology, leading a team, etc. I see the lines for Problem Decomposition and Communication, but I think there is something much broader that is being left out.
Apple is a steward, but they chose not to have their logo in the footer. You can see them on the list of the stewards http://webplatform.org/stewards/
Police Follow PRQ Action With New Raid, Anti-Piracy Group Says More to Come
But the author specifically asked people not to "cheat".
Create and edit closed captions for your YouTube videos
Mosified
Check this out... looking for investors to build and early adopters to get feedback
(Ex-ASE-certified mechanic here, but IANAL.) Your typical recourse is to return to the shop and have them do the job again. Yes, the faster a shop turns out a job the more they make per hour. But if a car comes back, the money made on fast turnover gets lost quickly. So contrary to popular belief there is an incentive to do the job right. If the car comes back, they should work on it until it's right.

Now what if the shop said, in your example, "too bad, we're not fixing the head gasket"? I'll start with saying that court is probably your next option. But I have two other things to add. First, a decent shop would replace the head gasket if they screwed up. Once in a while a shop just has to eat a big job due to a screw up.

Second, though, is that it's sometimes hard to properly place blame. I don't know the details of your situation, so forgive me for assumptions, but head gaskets don't just blow the instant the overheat light comes on. Yeah, the shop may have screwed up, but that doesn't absolve the driver from pulling over when the light comes on. So who do we blame? Well, that's why you call a lawyer. :)
Which does place a lot of questions with what Samsung's legal team was doing during the jury selection. One of the questions asked of him was whether or not he had obtained a patent. He answered in the affirmative, and that should have been enough for Samsung's team to consider him a potentially biased witness. I've personally seen potential jurors thrown out for less of a reason when I had jury duty.
>>Certainly they copied some things, just as all companies copy good features from their competitors (this is a good thing; it's called progress).

You certainly have a very interesting definition for "progress."
Not surprising.

Indian Home Ministry also suspects the Chinese military being behind Huawei.

In fact a major controversy ongoing here is the allotment of telecom licenses (which were later squashed by the courts) to companies dependent Huawei.
Don't worry, I'm sure if it gets popular, the lawyers will soon stamp that out.
In some capacities, yes.

I meant generically, being able to remove identity from phone numbers. I want to call someone, however I want to call them, and reach them because the network I'm a part of already has enough information to divine who I'm trying to talk to.

This isn't fantasy, you could realistically do this right now with all of the signals we have online about who people are. It's just that no one sees value in aggregated routing databases, only in adding additional routing databases, like star star me.

Calling 'dad' and calling '101' are just placeholders for the real intention, reaching the person who is your father. However I want to get ahold of them should be reasonable and possible to do with today's technology.

Not trying to be combative, only trying to clarify my point :).
For me the most interesting find here was fruitstrap, hadn't seen that before, and I had been looking few years ago!

That'd make automated testing on device a lot more promising, and on cursory googling, people have used fruitstrap with jenkins.
Came here to post this, except I was going to suggest it be built into HN itself and be in a section at the top of the comment page, perhaps between the link and the comment box. A way to suggest/add the links to the box would be good too (maybe mods + the submitter could have control of which links show up via this system)
The site is by the organization that was Mercedes's dealer for ~13 years. I think that's more than enough credibility they're going to need to make such accusations. In my opinion, they aren't biased, because they provide supporting documents for every statement they make.

>I've owned 3 in the past

Unless you really know what's under the hood of your car, owning 'x' cars doesn't matter. Because this issue's seriousness can be understood only by someone who knows whats under the hood, which is exactly the opposite of Mercedes' target audience (They're more into luxury stuff, I believe).

Just curious - Do you know the seriousness of having a clutch assembly sticking to the floor? (Could cause fire, serious damage, deaths)
> > Indeed, and the definition of science doesn't contain "must have a unifying theory" as a prerequisite.
> On the contrary. Crafting and then testing theories is at the heart of how science is defined.

You said:

> there is no overarching theory that unites the 53 subfields recognized by the APA

I said that there doesn't need to be a unifying theory for a field to be considered a science. "One unifying theory" and "a field united by theories" are two different things. You're misrepresenting my words again, even after quoting them.

> Truth is not a goal in science, only theories that resist falsification. Any scientific theory is perpetually open to falsification

You seem to think that, since theories can be falsified, they have nothing to do with the truth. This not only doesn't follow, but is false. The truth is that gravity can be modeled with some equations. Newton's theory was pretty close to the truth, Einstein's is even closer. I have no clue how you can say that science doesn't care about the truth and building an accurate model of the world. Phrases like "the map and the territory" come to mind here.

> No alternative is necessary --the claim is false, period.

So you don't have a definition of science, you only have disagreement to other definitions? That doesn't sound very informed.

> It's easy to explain why (theories must remain open to falsification by new evidence)

Who said anything about theories being confirmed? If objects fall a certain way, they fall a certain way, some models are more correct than others, even if maybe none are completely correct. Science tries to build as accurate models as it can, getting closer to the actual truth of the world. Where's the problem here?

> And it's false -- science's goal is limited to finding evidence to support a theory about reality, prevent it from being falsified.

Yes. What you call "reality", I call "truth".

> I never said this, anywhere. Those are not my words.

Then I misunderstood. You said that my claim that mathematics is not a science was "exactly, precisely, perfectly" wrong. Mathematics isn't a science by your definition or mine.

> The topic is not whether psychology cold be scientific, if for example ethical constraints were ignored. The topic is whether psychology is scientific.

No, the topic is this claim you made:

> I will know psychology as a field has reached the threshold of science when psychologists courageously propose a central, unifying, falsifiable theory, amenable to practical test that, if it fails, invalidates the entire field.

I completely disagree. They can have two, three, or a hundred theories like that, and still be a science. The one unified theory isn't special, and that's what I'm arguing.

> I misrepresented nothing, instead I quoted you word for word, just as I am doing now.

And then misrepresented the meaning of the words you just quoted, as above.

> You, by contrast, have invented positions for me, like "... and then claimed that this makes mathematics the most pure science there is ..." as though I had taken that position or used those words.

I misunderstood one of your (unfounded) disagreements, hardly an indictment.
Nobel Prize Awarded to Stem Cell Pioneers
You're saying "the answer" as if there's only one answer for every single developer out there.

Perhaps you get taxed mentally when switching between IDEs...I certainly don't.
Coming soon: Tweeshirts: Bringing social to what you wear
MIT Startup Bootcamp (Digg, Taskrabbit, etc.): Live Feed